As a conservative, I actually see the point...from both sides.The Second Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms". It is a given right to all law abiding citizens of the United States of America to do so. The Federal Government can’t restrict/take this right from those that lawfully want to "bear arms". Once you start to take these rights away, little by little, it is a slippery slope that could lead to even further restrictions in the future. Taking knee-jerk reactions to jump into changes for the sake of changes can be very dangerous. One of the reasons this was written into the Constitution was for it to be a way to keep government in check.Now, the Federal Government is looking to limit that right based on how our society/citizens are using/abusing it. What I mean is, we have shown as a society that maybe we can’t handle this right at its face value, as it was written in the Constitution. Too many people are misusing their weapons at the expense of other people/victims. We are some 226 years from the signing of the constitution; which was written in a time of muskets, long rifles, and inaccurate hand guns that you needed to be within 20 feet of the target to even have a chance of hitting it.There are plenty of laws/regulations already in place that are not enforced. Why not start from there? Those that are outraged by the possibility of more limits being put in place should focus on working with the Federal Government to find some common ground and start from there. As a member of the NRA, I can honestly say I don’t agree with how they have approached this.On the other hand, I think the Federal Government should be more open to listening to gun rights advocates instead of poking them in the eye all the time and saying things like,“you have blood on your hands if…”. If someone continued to poke me in the eye, I would poke back…and it may not always be in a good way.Just my opinion...

Wow, what a refreshing perspective. One of the things I suggested, shortly after the Newtown shooting, was that this was a time for responsible gun owners like yourself to be involved in common sense regulation. I said that it's the sportsmen, the collectors, and the enthusiasts to stand up, agree on reasonable restrictions everyone can live with, and advocate for those rather than let the anti-gun masses make unreasonable demands.

The problem is course is that would never happen - the sportsmen, collectors, enthusiasts and NRA want an all-or-none approach, beating the same old "blame the media" drum while condemning any sort of common sense regulation as liberal gun snatching and constitutional desecration.

YOU are the voice of reason in all this - we know how the left feels, they want more regulation, lots more. We know the NRA was ZERO regulation. But when regulation is inevitable, doesn't it make sense for those with a stake in this to stand up for reasonable legislation to avoid the whole slippery slope?

As a conservative, I actually see the point...from both sides.The Second Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms". It is a given right to all law abiding citizens of the United States of America to do so. The Federal Government can’t restrict/take this right from those that lawfully want to "bear arms". Once you start to take these rights away, little by little, it is a slippery slope that could lead to even further restrictions in the future.

The problem with this argument is that we ALREADY restrict which weapons people can own.

If blocking someone from owning a machine gun is a slippery slope, then blocking them from owning a surface to air missile is just as much of a slippery slope.

The question that needs to be asked is this: "What do people THINK they need these weapons for?"

If the answer is: Hunting, Self Protection, Sport, etc. Then there's no justification for military style weapons.

If the answer is: To overthrow the government, then there is still no justification for military style weapons. Guess what - the ARMY has MUCH better weapons than any civilian.

There are plenty of laws/regulations already in place that are not enforced. Why not start from there?

Because, as I've now said several times on other threads, Conservatives have made it IMPOSSIBLE for the ATF to enforce laws.

The ATF has been without a director for 6 YEARS.They have the same number of agents now as they had 25 years ago - despite the fact that they are in charge of ALL Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms investigations.They aren't allowed to verify a dealers inventory, and they aren't allowed to investigate the same dealer twice in the same year. And, given their WOEFULLY inadequate staff, it would take them a decade to investigate all the dealers currently in America.

All of this is because Conservatives passed a specific law restricting the ATF's ability to do these things.

They did this because they know that their supporters are too stupid to dig any deeper than "enforce the laws on the books".

This would be like passing a nationwide speed limit of 10 MPH, then making it illegal for cops to use radar guns or pull anyone over.

"Why don't we just enforce the speed limit that already exists?"

I think the Federal Government should be more open to listening to gun rights advocates instead of poking them in the eye all the time and saying things like,“you have blood on your hands if…”. If someone continued to poke me in the eye, I would poke back…and it may not always be in a good way.Just my opinion...

The problem with gun rights advocates, as you demonstrate above, is this:

Your response to EVERYTHING is to threaten violence.

The Government says: "Hey, you don't need a machine gun. You don't need to shoot 150 rounds in 3 seconds."

You guys respond: "I'm going to murder everyone I see!"

It's childish.

Let's face it - you don't have a leg to stand on. Your argument is inconsistent. Your position is inconsistent.

You claim to be a Conservative. How about this?

Let's cut the military budget down to 25% of its current levels. Then they would STILL massively outgun the public, but you'd stand at least a chance of defeating them in your planned civil war.

Or, as a Conservative, are you FOR funding the military that you are also actively planing to overthrown?

<quoted text>Your response to EVERYTHING is to threaten violence.The Government says: "Hey, you don't need a machine gun. You don't need to shoot 150 rounds in 3 seconds."You guys respond: "I'm going to murder everyone I see!"It's childish.Let's face it - you don't have a leg to stand on. Your argument is inconsistent. Your position is inconsistent.You claim to be a Conservative. How about this?Let's cut the military budget down to 25% of its current levels. Then they would STILL massively outgun the public, but you'd stand at least a chance of defeating them in your planned civil war.Or, as a Conservative, are you FOR funding the military that you are also actively planing to overthrown?

I'll only waste my time on this one small part of your post as you seem to have made a lot of assumptions about me.

1. I'm not going to murder anyone...let alone everyone2. I am a proud veteran and am not "actively", or inactively for that matter, planning to overthrow the government.

But, thanks for demonstrating that your way is the only way! I'll get right on that! yeah...right...

<quoted text>LOL! He's all over the map, isn't he?Point taken - Scalia is too erratic and unreliable to be considered a reliable authority. We should just stick with established case law.And established case law is clear that limiting the arms that civilians can possess does not violate the 2nd Amendment.

No one on this planet would ever think that you know more about law then Scalia. This is just another example of you being a dumbass. Get a job, lazy pos.

One of the reasons this was written into the Constitution was for it to be a way to keep government in check.

How exactly do guns keep the government in check apart from being used to threaten people with acts of violence?

Are you building bridges out of guns? Are you making cakes out of guns? Or are you saying that you can use the guns to violently overthrow the government if you choose?

If someone continued to poke me in the eye, I would poke back…and it may not always be in a good way.

Do you expect us to believe that this is not a thinly veiled threat to violently attack someone?

Like most Conservatives, you have a little John Wayne fantasy playing out in your head of leading a (white) army against the Government and re-establishing the "way America used to be" with everyone in their "proper place".

It's boring. It's transparent. It's childish.

Your "America" never existed. It didn't exist 10 years ago. It didn't exist 50 years ago. It didn't exist 100 years ago.

You need to read up on the history of the 2nd Amendment and why it was written. It was not written to violently overthrow the government. Part of the reason it was written is for people to have a defense against a government that would abuse its people; i.e. the British Monarchy that resulted in the revolution.

My reference to "poking back" is/was in reference to speaking out against things I do not believe in. Just as the NRA and other groups are doing now.(Already said I didn't totally agree with the NRA on this issue, so don't even try to twist that) Stop being so paranoid about those that have a different opinion than you.

And, if you are trying to say, I'm racist? Would lead a "white" army? Grow up...you don't need to play the race card to try and gain the upper hand in a discussion that you are only making wild accusations. You have no idea who I am, who my family is, and who my friends are. If you did, then you would probably feel a little embarrassed by that statement. I believe YOU are the one showing hatred...not me.

"The paranoia that our guns will be taken away. They won't. The assault weapons ban was turned over, and didn't succeed a second time, so, the rally was pointless. The only people redefining the 2nd Amendment are the NRA and people like those who showed up at this stupid rally.

I'll be interested when you 9/12 John Bircher retrogrades have a rally to protect the 4th amendment.

Also, it's funny you mentioned "the media" in another post. "The media," which gives a platform to people like Wayne LaPierre and Larry Pratt is the only reason people feel the need to hold rallies like this. Looks like you bought into the big "media" scam."

<quoted text>The problem with this argument is that we ALREADY restrict which weapons people can own.If blocking someone from owning a machine gun is a slippery slope, then blocking them from owning a surface to air missile is just as much of a slippery slope.The question that needs to be asked is this: "What do people THINK they need these weapons for?"If the answer is: Hunting, Self Protection, Sport, etc. Then there's no justification for military style weapons.If the answer is: To overthrow the government, then there is still no justification for military style weapons. Guess what - the ARMY has MUCH better weapons than any civilian.<quoted text>Because, as I've now said several times on other threads, Conservatives have made it IMPOSSIBLE for the ATF to enforce laws.The ATF has been without a director for 6 YEARS.They have the same number of agents now as they had 25 years ago - despite the fact that they are in charge of ALL Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms investigations.They aren't allowed to verify a dealers inventory, and they aren't allowed to investigate the same dealer twice in the same year. And, given their WOEFULLY inadequate staff, it would take them a decade to investigate all the dealers currently in America.All of this is because Conservatives passed a specific law restricting the ATF's ability to do these things.They did this because they know that their supporters are too stupid to dig any deeper than "enforce the laws on the books".This would be like passing a nationwide speed limit of 10 MPH, then making it illegal for cops to use radar guns or pull anyone over."Why don't we just enforce the speed limit that already exists?"<quoted text>The problem with gun rights advocates, as you demonstrate above, is this:Your response to EVERYTHING is to threaten violence.The Government says: "Hey, you don't need a machine gun. You don't need to shoot 150 rounds in 3 seconds."You guys respond: "I'm going to murder everyone I see!"It's childish.Let's face it - you don't have a leg to stand on. Your argument is inconsistent. Your position is inconsistent.You claim to be a Conservative. How about this?Let's cut the military budget down to 25% of its current levels. Then they would STILL massively outgun the public, but you'd stand at least a chance of defeating them in your planned civil war.Or, as a Conservative, are you FOR funding the military that you are also actively planing to overthrown?

So what you're saying is that because our rights are ALREADY unconstitutionally partially INFRINGED we should just lie down and give up our rights completely? No thank you. I'll continue to work diligently to repeal the infringing laws and prevent any new infringements from being enacted.

There aren't enough individuals in our standing army to prevail against the whole body of the American people, no matter how well armed they are. You certainly must live in awe of technology. Just remember that all of those technologically advanced weapons aren't much good once the operators have been "incapacitated". You will also need to take into consideration that a significant number of those serving in the military will not take up arms against the American people and some will even defect to the civilian cause (bringing weapons and information with them). Let's hope we never need to go there because the death toll will surpass anything we know.

<quoted text>"Can it be necessary to say that a merchant vessel is not a privateer? That though she has arms to defend herself in time of war, in the course of her regular commerce, this no more makes her a privateer, than a husbandman following his plow, in time of war, with a KNIFE or PISTOL in his pocket, is. thereby, made a soldier? The occupation of a privateer is attack and plunder, that of a merchant vesstl is commerce and self-preservation."--Thom as Jefferson, To Gouerneur Morris, iv, 41. FORD ED., vi, 385.(Pa., Aug. 1793.).(Jeffersonian Cyclopedia).

Ummm...I'm sorry, but that answer is non-responsive.

Care to try again, or don't you have an explanation for why you ignore the first half of the amendment?

<quoted text>"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."--Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court.[As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243.]

So a militia was the stated purpose, but since times change we can ignore that part?

<quoted text>Most certainly correct, and I know this for a FACT. There is an organization called; "Oath Keepers" -http://oathkeepers.org/oath/"Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers, and firefighters who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God."Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial."We Oath Keepers have drawn a line in the sand. We will not “just follow orders.”"Our motto is “Not on our watch!”"If you, the American people, are forced to once again fight for your liberty in another American Revolution, you will not be alone. We will stand with you...."http://oathkeepers.org/oath/about/And then there are the Sheriff's:"Number Of Nation's Sheriffs Refusing To Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws Snowballs"From Florida to California, a growing number of the nation's sheriffs are standing up to gun control measures proposed by both the administration and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)."Many law enforcement officials have written letters to President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden voicing their concerns over what they believe is an effort to infringe upon the Second Amendment...."http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams...Believe the total number of Sheriff's is now over 340 and rising.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.